A giant cake 16 feet by 13 feet and a big ceremony are among the activities planned this month to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Connecticut. That is just the beginning of what will be a year-long celebration.
The ceremony will kick off with a performance by Rich Money Beatz and include speeches from Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council Chairman Rodney Butler and Foxwoods’ CEO & President Felix Rappaport. Later Kesha and Smokey Robinson will entertain.
But, since we are talking about a casino, there will be giveaways of $250,000 in prizes, Rolex watches and sports tickets.
Some people who first went to work at the casino a quarter century ago are still employed there. Such as Brenda Easton, who was a single mother at the top and applied to be a waitress. She still works there, only at the Cedars Restaurant. In the years since she joined the team her benefits have increased to include health insurance, sick times, vacation time and a 401 (k) which, she told the Norwich Bulletin, was “totally unheard of” in the casino industry at that time.
“If you love your job, you never work a day in your life,” she added.
Meanwhile, the discussion is heating up over whether to try to protect jobs like Easton’s, and thousands more, that are threatened by the opening of the MGM Springfield, across the border in Massachusetts.
Two years ago, the legislature authorized the state’s two gaming tribes, the Mashantucket Pequots and the Mohegans, to begin a search for the site of a third, “satellite” casino that would be jointly run by the erstwhile rivals, but not on tribal land. However, the lawmakers did not actually pass the enabling legislation that would make such a casino legal.
The tribes have spent the last two years winnowing down proposals, and now have reduced them to two in the Hartford area: East Windsor and Windsor Locks. As they have made haste slowly, the $950 million MGM Springfield has begun to rise ominously, 14 miles away.
That giant isn’t the only threat. For years both casinos have seen their revenues steadily declining.
That issue worries many lawmakers and more critics, who ask why, if revenues are declining, another casino would help. But there are plenty of legislators who want to do whatever is necessary to minimize how much money and jobs flows into the Bay State.
Reps. Ezequiel Santiago and Chris Rosario aren’t convinced that the tribes should be the sole custodians of gaming tax revenues flowing into the state. They have introduced a bill that would allow more casino throughout the state, and add a competitive licensing process and a 25 percent tax on gaming profits.
Santiago points to a pari-mutuel wagering facility in Bridgeport, the Shoreline Star, which is already zoned for this activity. “It would be beneficial for the Shoreline to team up with the tribes with slot machines, but we are not even given that opportunity,” Santiago told the Connecticut Post. He criticizes the fact that the tribes “have a monopoly on the gaming industry,” and says that others, like the Shoreline Star, should be allowed “a seat at the table.”
Rep. Steve Stafstrom is open to expanding casino licensing to the Shoreline Star. “It’s about jobs,” he told the Post.
The new co-chairman of the Public Safety and Security Committee, Joe Verrengia—whose panel oversees gaming—says he wants to have a meeting where all of the competing interests will talk. He wants a transparent process and is especially interested in determining how this would affect the tribal state gaming compact that dates to Governor Lowell P. Weicker. That compact guaranteed the state 25 percent of the gaming revenue from the two casinos, but only if the tribes were guaranteed a monopoly on slots and table games.
He said, “There’s definitely the possibility of a domino effect, and if we submitted a bill that opened it to everyone there could be the fallout. I think we hear over and over again from the tribal leaders ‘it’s about jobs.’ Yeah, it is; there is a job piece. There is also an economic-development piece to this.”
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, who two years ago warned the legislature that it risked stepping on a legal landmine if it went down the road of allowing the tribes to expand their casinos onto non-sovereign land, last week met with Verrengia and the committee to brief them on the legal issues.
The AG is currently defending the two-year old law the legislature did pass against a furious legal assault by MGM, which has charged that the law violates its constitutional rights to be allowed to participate in casino siting.
According to Jepsen, “The District Court agreed that the state has not — at least to this point, in light of the limited nature of the Special Act — infringed on MGM’s rights and granted our motion to dismiss MGM’s lawsuit, and MGM has appealed that decision. The appeal has been argued, and we currently await the Second Circuit’s decision.”
Then there are the lawmakers who oppose any gaming expansion at all. Such as state Senator Tony Hwang, who is considered a likely contender for governor in 2018. He has joined forces with a group called the Coalition Against Casino Expansion, most of whose member organizations are religious groups that oppose gaming on principle. But Hwang also argues that the state’s gaming industry is in decline.
At a news conference held at the state capitol, the senator declared, “We may be looking at an industry that is at a saturation point,” Hwang said. “The real concern is, are we looking at a proper economic benefit? Are we opening up a Pandora’s box of our constitutional equal-protection, in which we are in essence allowing a monopoly who control gambling in our states, in exchange for our tribal compact?” He added that the legislature hasn’t been doing its job understanding the impact of problem gambling.
But allowing more casinos to come in creates another problem, he says. “Constitutionally, we are opening the door to creating a precedent, with the MGMs of the world wanting to come in.”
Michele Mudrick of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ, one of the 12 groups that hosted the news conference, said “We’re coming together to urge that no new casinos be built in our state.”
Another member of the coalition, Bob Steele, said gambling ruins lives. “The house always wins,” said Steele. “The Legislature should require a statewide referendum on any expansion.”
Although not a member of the coalition, Senator L. Scott Frantz, co-chairman of the Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee predicts that a consensus will be hard to build. “I think they’re going to have a really tough time finding a place to put it where everybody is amenable to it,” he told the Connecticut Post. “I think there are a lot of people who oppose gambling. I don’t think we’re doing much for our state or citizens if we put up another casino.
He fears the state has become addicted to gaming revenue and notes that the state is reacting to the declining stream of money.
Governor Dannel P. Malloy, who has remained above the fray on this discussion, agrees that the additional money to be had is a poor argument for authorizing a new casino. “We’re not talking about gobs and gobs of additional money,” he said last week. “I think what the Indian tribal nations within Connecticut are saying is that ‘our market is under assault and we need help in defending that market.’ Ultimately that is a question for the Legislature.”
A recent study by Oxford Economics, paid for by MGM, showed that a casino between Bridgeport and Greenwich “would generate far greater economic benefits than locating one in north central Connecticut because southwest Connecticut offers a much deeper market.” Such a casino, said the study would generate about $70 million in taxes, compared to $16 million from the north central region, where the tribes want to build to blunt the MGM casino. Such a casino, said the study, would cost about $1.1 billion and create nearly 6,000 jobs. MGM prefers this option because it would allow it to compete for the license. Its non-compete clause does not allow it to build a casino in the Hartford area since it would harm the profits of its Springfield property.
In a related development, Anthony W. Ravosa Jr., whose proposal for a casino in East Hartford is no longer in the running, is now urging lawmakers to increase the taxes to 35 percent for any new casino and use the proceeds to fund development projects that would benefit the state.
